creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[Worthy4England]

I'm not a big 1 day fan but this team was incredible before Archer. At home we really should win it.

I’m not either. I’ve always struggled to recall any ODIs more than a couple of weeks later. This team are making me take more notice though. Bowling is the weakness, and the only worry for the World Cup is the batsmen fail in one of the knock out games as happened in the last champions trophy

If we play every ODI side in the world in a series I bet we would win all of them over 5 matches.

As you say in a one off world cup - its a bit down to luck. Just one match where you lose a toss or the other team has a plan that just works and you are out cheaply and its all over....it doesn't take much.

But this England side IMO is the best around. Will they win? Who knows. But they are special.

We are probably a fast bowler short of perfect - but I'd not say bowling is our weakness. Bowling line up is weaker than batting line up. But which team is that not true for in this game?

Funny how it turns out. Our bowling was the best in the tournament and won it for us. Whereas our batting was - hit and miss at times.

But I felt going in we were the best side and in the end that's how it has worked out...just....

I think as was the case yesterday, we gave some credence to the notion that there's more than a modicum of "flat track bully" in there (I don't really subscribe to the notion as the track is equally as flat for the other side - so they have the same opportunity - but clearly we're better with the ball coming on than when we have to force and nudge). We did struggle when we needed to "force" runs yesterday as we have for a while now - which makes yesterday's pitch for a final at home all the more unbelievable.

As for your bet regarding winning any ODI series over 5, we drew the very last one prior to the competition 2-2 with the West Indies - so hardly a long while ago!

[BWFC_Insane]

Feel even worse for NZ now that the umpires got it wrong and it should have been 5 not 6 off the bat deflection.....

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not a big 1 day fan but this team was incredible before Archer. At home we really should win it.

I’m not either. I’ve always struggled to recall any ODIs more than a couple of weeks later. This team are making me take more notice though. Bowling is the weakness, and the only worry for the World Cup is the batsmen fail in one of the knock out games as happened in the last champions trophy

If we play every ODI side in the world in a series I bet we would win all of them over 5 matches.

As you say in a one off world cup - its a bit down to luck. Just one match where you lose a toss or the other team has a plan that just works and you are out cheaply and its all over....it doesn't take much.

But this England side IMO is the best around. Will they win? Who knows. But they are special.

We are probably a fast bowler short of perfect - but I'd not say bowling is our weakness. Bowling line up is weaker than batting line up. But which team is that not true for in this game?

Funny how it turns out. Our bowling was the best in the tournament and won it for us. Whereas our batting was - hit and miss at times.

But I felt going in we were the best side and in the end that's how it has worked out...just....

I think as was the case yesterday, we gave some credence to the notion that there's more than a modicum of "flat track bully" in there (I don't really subscribe to the notion as the track is equally as flat for the other side - so they have the same opportunity - but clearly we're better with the ball coming on than when we have to force and nudge). We did struggle when we needed to "force" runs yesterday as we have for a while now - which makes yesterday's pitch for a final at home all the more unbelievable.

As for your bet regarding winning any ODI series over 5, we drew the very last one prior to the competition 2-2 with the West Indies - so hardly a long while ago!

Yep - I don't doubt that we're not that well suited to slower wickets as a batting lineup. I'd argue though that two of our supposed flat track bullies in Buttler and Stokes did ok though...I mean for me Buttler is the best ODI batsman in the world right now. He timed the ball off that pitch better than anyone on either side...

But for me its less about being "flat track" bullies and more that the wickets in many of these games were levellers. Like a muddy football pitch. They made poorer sides have a chance in games because if you got a score that in a normal ODI would be 100 short - you often still had a chance even with average bowling. For me as much as it produced exciting cricket, unforgettable moments....there is no way on earth a showpiece final should be played on the pitch it was yesterday. Yes it was compelling. Yes it was unbelievable and yes its the same for both teams. But for me England are a miles better side than NZ but the wicket levelled the match up - which was good for the spectacle but IMHO not good for the sport had NZ stumbled their way to a WC win without scoring 300 in the tournament nor really ever looking much more than average. And thats not disrespectful to them - they battled and showed a huge amount of grit and class. Fantastic. But winning world cups with 240 scores and dibbly dobbler bowlers like CDG who in normal circumstances go round the park would for me have been a poor end to the tournament overall. And not a good advert for the one day game as a whole.

[Prufrock]

I'm not a big 1 day fan but this team was incredible before Archer. At home we really should win it.

I’m not either. I’ve always struggled to recall any ODIs more than a couple of weeks later. This team are making me take more notice though. Bowling is the weakness, and the only worry for the World Cup is the batsmen fail in one of the knock out games as happened in the last champions trophy

If we play every ODI side in the world in a series I bet we would win all of them over 5 matches.

As you say in a one off world cup - its a bit down to luck. Just one match where you lose a toss or the other team has a plan that just works and you are out cheaply and its all over....it doesn't take much.

But this England side IMO is the best around. Will they win? Who knows. But they are special.

We are probably a fast bowler short of perfect - but I'd not say bowling is our weakness. Bowling line up is weaker than batting line up. But which team is that not true for in this game?

Funny how it turns out. Our bowling was the best in the tournament and won it for us. Whereas our batting was - hit and miss at times.

But I felt going in we were the best side and in the end that's how it has worked out...just....

I think as was the case yesterday, we gave some credence to the notion that there's more than a modicum of "flat track bully" in there (I don't really subscribe to the notion as the track is equally as flat for the other side - so they have the same opportunity - but clearly we're better with the ball coming on than when we have to force and nudge). We did struggle when we needed to "force" runs yesterday as we have for a while now - which makes yesterday's pitch for a final at home all the more unbelievable.

As for your bet regarding winning any ODI series over 5, we drew the very last one prior to the competition 2-2 with the West Indies - so hardly a long while ago!

Think I read that the ICC are in charge of the pitches rather than the ECB. Imagine we'd have had flat tracks all round otherwise.


I imagine Jimbo will remember that one!

[BWFC_Insane]

https://twitter.com/JofraArcher/status/ ... 6691656705

Archer knew 6 years ago....

[Prufrock]

And yeah, undoubtedly lucky. Probably the luckiest win I've ever seen. Not to say it was a travesty, just every single little thing, and a couple of pretty big things went our way. The Boult catch and Stokes deflection (all in the final 2 overs?). Madness. You obviously take it, and it isn't going to devalue the win one iota, but yeah, our day!

Feel for Boult in particular. Been incredible all tournament, played well yesterday, then steps on the rope before going for 15 (?) off the last over then 15 off the super over. He's going to be thinking of that every time he can't sleep for the rest of the world. And he's a top guy. You'd maybe think twice about wishing that on David Warner. Maybe.

[BWFC_Insane]

And yeah, undoubtedly lucky. Probably the luckiest win I've ever seen. Not to say it was a travesty, just every single little thing, and a couple of pretty big things went our way. The Boult catch and Stokes deflection (all in the final 2 overs?). Madness. You obviously take it, and it isn't going to devalue the win one iota, but yeah, our day!

Feel for Boult in particular. Been incredible all tournament, played well yesterday, then steps on the rope before going for 15 (?) off the last over then 15 off the super over. He's going to be thinking of that every time he can't sleep for the rest of the world. And he's a top guy. You'd maybe think twice about wishing that on David Warner. Maybe.

I thought Boult was poor yesterday personally - 10 overs 0 for 67. Far and away the worst economy rate of any bowler on that pitch. And after the first over didn't really threaten much.

The "catch" - the super over - its harsh but overall his performance probably cost NZ.

[Worthy4England]

Think I read that the ICC are in charge of the pitches rather than the ECB. Imagine we'd have had flat tracks all round otherwise.

I imagine Jimbo will remember that one!

The groundsman is actually and factually "in charge" of the pitch, regardless of who notionally is responsible for ensuring their validity It isn't against the rules to have flat wickets with the ball coming on. Yesterday's wasn't it.

Asking a groundsman for one that's going to spin on Day 3 for example, or one with plenty of pace in it, has gone on forever. Ever spotted how you always find fast bouncy tracks in Australia and ones that'll take spin in the sub-continent.

[BWFC_Insane]

Think I read that the ICC are in charge of the pitches rather than the ECB. Imagine we'd have had flat tracks all round otherwise.

I imagine Jimbo will remember that one!

The groundsman is actually and factually "in charge" of the pitch, regardless of who notionally is responsible for ensuring their validity It isn't against the rules to have flat wickets with the ball coming on. Yesterday's wasn't it.

Asking a groundsman for one that's going to spin on Day 3 for example, or one with plenty of pace in it, has gone on forever. Ever spotted how you always find fast bouncy tracks in Australia and ones that'll take spin in the sub-continent.

The ICC provide guidance and have an "independent inspector" who oversees pitch preparation.

Lets ask this question - English pitches have been high scoring in ODI's typically even in May, even when a bit of rain is around. Then you get into a WC and in lots of cases 250 is a good score and the pitches are sticky and hard to score off. What is the difference between this situation and the bi-laterals played previously?

Only one variable different as far as I can see - the ICC.

[Worthy4England]

This is what the ICC had to say about the pitches.

That has led to accusations that the ICC has instructed local groundsmen to prepare slower surfaces than normal. But world cricket’s governing body said: “Essentially the venues are responsible for the pitch preparation which is done with oversight and guidance from the ICC and our independent pitch consultant.

“The guidance we give any host of an ICC event is to prepare the best possible pitches for the conditions in that country – so in this case the best possible ODI pitch for typical English conditions and we would also look for even bounce and good carry. The ICC does not instruct groundsmen to prepare pitches in a certain way to advantage, or disadvantage, any team.”

It's down to the Head Groundsman pretty much.

[Prufrock]

It certainly seems odd that having played years of having English pitches at these grounds that were batting tracks allowing us to smash 300 and even 400 regularly we would suddenly deliberately change that.

The ICC influence is obvious one change, though they say it wasn't because of them.

One other factor that occurred to me (I don't know enough about cricket wickets or gardening to know if it could be a factor) but the fact they played a lot of games on the same grounds on different wickets within the square. I imagine that happens quite a lot anyway in all the different forms of the game but wonder if they had left the "show" wickets long earlier in the tournament (that weird Edgbaston short boundary came because they weren't using the wicket reserved for the semi-final). If they left the show wickets long as it was part of the outfield earlier in the tournament, is it as simple as cutting the grass, using a descarifier and giving it a roll?

[Enoch]

I don't know enough about cricket wickets or gardening to know if it could be a factor

You can't tell me how to get rid of this f*cking bindweed then?

[Prufrock]

Flamethrower ("that's no way to talk about Ben Stokes").

[Enoch]

Doesn't work, tried something very similar.

[Worthy4England]

It certainly seems odd that having played years of having English pitches at these grounds that were batting tracks allowing us to smash 300 and even 400 regularly we would suddenly deliberately change that.

The ICC influence is obvious one change, though they say it wasn't because of them.

One other factor that occurred to me (I don't know enough about cricket wickets or gardening to know if it could be a factor) but the fact they played a lot of games on the same grounds on different wickets within the square. I imagine that happens quite a lot anyway in all the different forms of the game but wonder if they had left the "show" wickets long earlier in the tournament (that weird Edgbaston short boundary came because they weren't using the wicket reserved for the semi-final). If they left the show wickets long as it was part of the outfield earlier in the tournament, is it as simple as cutting the grass, using a descarifier and giving it a roll?

Just wait until you discover the beauty of Proctor compaction curves and what weight of roller to request using!

[jimbo]

Dujon’s right about the flukey nature of the win. For me it’s all about celebrating an incredible game of cricket and sporting drama. It’s lovely having our name on the trophy but I do feel for New Zealand. In all previous tournaments the trophy would have been shared in the event of a tie. In other iterations of the game we’d have lost after 50overs on account of losing more wickets. In the end we won based on outperforming NZ in a metric that would have had absolutely no place in the minds of the players or fans as the game progressed. It’s incredibly random.

Really pleased for the squad though. Lots of hard work and effort have seen them completely turn it around in odi’s in the last 4 years. The core of the squad can stay together for a while as well.

[TANGODANCER]

As a country, I reckon we've lost enough "flukes" , "Hand of God"s', disallowed goals, wrong calls and blatant ref errors( our women lost a world cup football match a week ago because they scored after a ball hit one in the tulips and it was disallowed for handball after she scored?) etc in all sports to be allowed to, just for once be proud of winning a major. Yesterday was about far more than rules and regulations, (daft as they often are but exist as they do) but about 22 blokes giving it their all in an incredible sporting event. In the "must have a winner" world we live in, unfortunatlely playing to rules that often aren't in the game's best interests, one side had to win and it was us. Let the international press/bodies etc, make what they will of it, and if they're not happy with the rules, change them before we start, not moan about them afterwards. Rules exist, we played by them and won. I've already stated I'd have been happy enough with a shared trophy, but would the opposition have felt the same? Somehow I've got a feeling we might have got a "tough, you lost" from certain quarters. As ever, I'll be quite happy to be wrong.

Meanwhile.....

[jimbo]

As a country, I reckon we've lost enough "flukes" , "Hand of God"s', disallowed goals, wrong calls and blatant ref errors( our women lost a world cup football match a week ago because they scored after a ball hit one in the tulips and it was disallowed for handball after she scored?) etc in all sports to be allowed to, just for once be proud of winning a major. Yesterday was about far more than rules and regulations, (daft as they often are but exist as they do) but about 22 blokes giving it their all in an incredible sporting event. In the "must have a winner" world we live in, unfortunatlely playing to rules that often aren't in the game's best interests, one side had to win and it was us. Let the international press/bodies etc, make what they will of it, and if they're not happy with the rules, change them before we start, not moan about them afterwards. Rules exist, we played by them and won. I've already stated I'd have been happy enough with a shared trophy, but would the opposition have felt the same? Somehow I've got a feeling we might have got a "tough, you lost" from certain quarters. As ever, I'll be quite happy to be wrong.

Meanwhile.....

I guess the issue is it was decided by an arbitrary statistic, no more relevant than the toss of a coin. All measures to actually determine the better cricket side were tied. Another more commonly used method to decide a game in such a situation is ‘wickets lost’ which would have seen a NZ win. We could make up another one of most points in the group stages where we’d have also won. In both situations the facts of the game would have remained the same yet an arbitrary administrative difference would have given different winners. If they’ve scored the same number of runs after 50 overs, and then tie the super over, then I’m comfortable with it being a tie.

[BWFC_Insane]

Dujon’s right about the flukey nature of the win. For me it’s all about celebrating an incredible game of cricket and sporting drama. It’s lovely having our name on the trophy but I do feel for New Zealand. In all previous tournaments the trophy would have been shared in the event of a tie. In other iterations of the game we’d have lost after 50overs on account of losing more wickets. In the end we won based on outperforming NZ in a metric that would have had absolutely no place in the minds of the players or fans as the game progressed. It’s incredibly random.

Really pleased for the squad though. Lots of hard work and effort have seen them completely turn it around in odi’s in the last 4 years. The core of the squad can stay together for a while as well.

Both sides knew the rules. I don't think that really is an issue. Had we known it was "wickets lost" stokes would have tried to smash that last ball to the boundary instead of playing for 1 and gambling on 2...

I think where NZ could be more aggrieved is that the Stokes' deflection was awarded 6 when the rules state it should have been 5. Even then of course had Stokes known that he might have tried to hit a boundary and might have succeeded - so you can't say that cost NZ the game.

But yeah - a very horrible and unlucky way to win. But the best team in the tournament won. And I think had that been on a proper pitch the margin would have been much greater.

[Worthy4England]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.